Brexit talks: A tragicomedy in 5 acts

LONDON — With an international cast of characters, moments of high drama and two leading men who enjoy hamming it up for all they’re worth, the Brexit talks could have been a five-star classic.

Alas, it hasn't worked out that way. A botched election by Theresa May, personality clashes, the Brits' perceived lack of seriousness, and major differences of opinion on almost every issue have resulted in five rounds of negotiations that produced very little and increased the likelihood of there not being a deal at all.

Thursday is the final day of the final week of the first phase of the negotiations, and officials say there's almost no chance of a last-minute game-changer.

Michel Barnier, the EU's leading man, was adamant this week that “Brexit is not a game.” He’s absolutely right. The first phase of Brexit negotiations was a tragicomedy.

Act 1 — June: The fight of the summer commences (and is over quickly)

The first round, conducted against a backdrop of political instability in the U.K. less than two weeks after a snap general election, drew heavily on that classic EU sub-genre — talks about talks.

High on the agenda was the question of sequencing. U.K. Brexit Secretary Davis had predicted that competing visions of the sequencing of talks would be the “row of the summer.” Barnier’s negotiating mandate required “sufficient progress” on key withdrawal issues — citizens’ rights, money and Northern Ireland — before any talks on the U.K.'s future relationship with the EU could begin. Davis said the U.K. wanted “everything packaged up together.”

Much to the chagrin of the U.K. negotiating team, the defining image of the first full round of talks was David Davis and his team meeting Barnier et al without any notes.

But when the one-day round of talks ended, it was confirmed the U.K. had bowed to the EU’s formal sequencing plan and also signed up to a framework for talks that divided the withdrawal issues up between leading officials and set a timetable for monthly negotiating rounds — a structure many in the U.K. team now regard as a clear “mistake,” according to one British official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Davis and the U.K. would continue to press home the point that some withdrawal issues — chiefly Northern Ireland and the status of its border in a new customs arrangement — can’t be settled without a discussion on the future relationship. They are still arguing about it now, with Chancellor Philip Hammond saying Wednesday that he believed EU negotiators now agreed with the premise.

Act 2 – July: Sorry, I’ve forgotten my lines

Much to the chagrin of the U.K. negotiating team, the defining image of the first full round of talks — officially the second round — was David Davis and his team meeting Barnier et al without any notes.

There was a reasonable explanation from the U.K. team for the offending, note-free photo (after many newspaper stings, officials face strict edicts about carrying sensitive documents that might be photographed) but it fed a narrative that the Brits were not well-prepared.

Money surfaced as the major source of tension. EU officials were taken aback when the U.K. did not present a formal counter-proposal to the EU’s assessment of which obligations should be included in the divorce bill. In fact, Davis wouldn't even concede there would be a “net flow” of cash from London to Brussels as a result of Brexit.

Hopes had been high for a quick settlement to the question of citizens’ rights but disagreements about the role of the European Court of Justice, and the EU’s refusal to allow U.K. citizens living in one EU state to resettle in another blocked progress. Officials began to mutter darkly — but very much anonymous — that the goal of Barnier declaring “sufficient progress” in time for October’s European Council summit might not be achieved.

Meanwhile, what the U.K. was asking for in terms of a trading relationship based on the EU accepting Britain's own, freely-chosen regulatory standards was “simply impossible,” Barnier said.

Something would have to give.

Act 4 – September: We’ll always have Florence

Perhaps spurred on by the bleak outcome of August’s talks, Theresa May delivered a speech in Florence that broke the logjam in certain areas — mainly financial.

Barnier hailed “a new dynamic”after May assured the EU that it would meet its EU budgetary obligations and she also cleared the air by insisting that any transition period that the two sides agreed on would see the U.K. operating under existing EU rules and regulations.

Incremental and technical progress was made in the negotiating rooms as, in truth, it had been all along. But the role of the ECJ remained a stumbling block in discussions on citizens’ rights. On Northern Ireland, agreement about maintaining the Common Travel Area — a special travel zone between the Republic of Ireland and the U.K., the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands — could not mask the inability of the two sides to progress without also talking about a future customs deal.

Act 5 – October: Can we start again, please?

No applause. No standing ovation. No curtain call.

One week out from the October European Council, with the two sides signaling that no major breakthrough has been forthcoming, with the European Parliament having ruled that "sufficient progress" has not been achieved, with Council President Donald Tusk talking about December, not October as crunch time,the final act of phase 1 looks set to end with a whimper.

U.K. officials' main hope now is that European leaders at least agree to loosen Barnier’s negotiating mandate to allow talks on the transition deal — although even that looks highly unlikely at this Council summit. The Brits also hope that from now on, with only 18 months until Brexit, talks can be organized in a more “organic” fashion, rather than the rigid timetable and four-week cycles of phase 1, according to one U.K. official.

“We think it should stem from how many discussions need to happen,” another official said, suggesting a move away from the regular Brussels media set-pieces that the audience of this tragicomedy has come to enjoy so much.

oden schutz

They could have saved all that timewasting, as the UK position has been
unchanged since day one, or perhaps since time immemorial: –
1. Human rights [‘Ere we go ere we go, we don’t want no stinkin’ human rights’];
2. Ireland [WTF who cares about a bunch of peasants’];
3. Pay what you owe [‘go whistle’].

Posted on 10/12/17 | 5:22 AM CET

crispin hythe

Reality-base talks fail because brexit is a version of the American ‘Rapture’ cult. The chosen [‘leavers’] will fly off to a fantasy heaven, while the damned [‘remainers’] suffer for their sins in ruined England. Brexit misery is not a temporary by-product, but the whole point – sinners are SUPPOSED to suffer. The tragic [or comic?] thing is that this self-harm cult will corrode English political life indefinitely. Remember how quaint the sectarian strife in N Ireland seemed to the English in the 1960s? That’s how England will look in the 2060s.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 6:01 AM CET

Petter B.

It seems to me the author has forgotten the chief reason for this vaudeville: Only one side seems to be negotiating. EU appears to have this idea of this being merely a technical exercise (where they set the rules), and the UK approach this as political negotiations. The end result is that the EU has no real ground to negotiate on, and the UK is left negotiating with itself.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 7:30 AM CET

WanHaiLe

Good article, thanks

Posted on 10/12/17 | 7:31 AM CET

tony

Politico ought to be ashamed of themselves for coming up with this nonsense. Mind you their agenda was already clear even before, when they came up with that nonsense on stilts about Britain divided last week.

The EU have no intention of cutting a deal as punishment of the UK for defying the Brussels elite is top of their agenda with second on the list a message to the rest of their subservient subject states not to try and leave either

Those of us who have read the varoufakis book adults in the room knew the talks would lead exactly nowhere and that ridicule and disdain would be key parts of the EU propaganda .

Posted on 10/12/17 | 7:47 AM CET

tony

Act two, the brits turning up without notes is typical of the blatant propaganda being employed by the EU.

Does anyone seriously think the Brita would just turn up to an important meeting without any sort of paperwork or agenda at all? Complete nonsense of course. Photos taken a few minutes after the official ones showed the Brita had lots of closed folders and electronic devices.

This propaganda has escalated daily as has This nonsense that you can talk about subjects such as Irish borders without discussing the trade that will flow over them.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 7:54 AM CET

glembay18

Time is money and it seems that the UK have both ,by acting like this.Unfortunately,it will backfire,what more moderate Brexiteers like Pete Nort on his blog is predicting.What a shambles !?

Posted on 10/12/17 | 8:05 AM CET

fatbob

The sad part is that the EU mistakes the word ‘negotitation’ for ‘diktat’. And they don’t seem to any adults to speak to. Just petulant drunk children.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 9:44 AM CET

Reginald

glembay18

What a shambles? Yes that is the message you are supposed to propagate. Good little EUbot. Heel.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 9:46 AM CET

Katrin3

@ Petter B.

A no point has the UK produced any concrete proposals of their own. Their negotiators merely nit pick about the EU’s proposals.

The truth is, that there’s no consensus in the Tory party itself, about what they wish to achieve from the negotiations. Hard Breixiters want a hard Brexit, with no deal. Others want to stay part of the free market and customs union (which they can’t) when they’ve left the EU. Then there are all those Tories who want a 2-year transition deal (while they figure out what they do want).

The main reasons for all the delays is the ongoing war within the Tory party itself. How is the EU supposed to negotiate, not knowing who’ll be the UK’s PM next week?

Brexit looks more and more likely to be of the hard variety.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 10:06 AM CET

sgu66

@Katrin3

You will probably find the UK is split in the same manner as how you describe the Tories. Unfortunately the solution will be dictated not by the UK approach, but by the EU one. The UK has to have a deal that can be sold politically, otherwise there would be too high a risk of a constitutional crisis that erodes the political structure of the UK. Irrespective of whether people voted leave or remain, the longer term consequences of either a capitulation to the EU or a hard brexit would reverberate in UK politics for decades; the Tories know they cannot row back on the referendum result, but they also know they need a political gesture from the EU to highlight as a “win”, so if they fail to get that, then the hard brexit scenario is the only route for them to take, as it is the best of the options available that may let them stay as a major political party. If Labour came to power, they too have their issues to deal with, as they have the same brexit splits as well as the fundamental make up of the party to consider (in effect, the same as the tories). Unfortunately the UK political parties cannot get over the fact that people voted to leave the EU, and as a result their is no way to reconcile the current political leanings of these parties with the split in the country over in/out, ironically this split came about because the major parties failed to identify the views of the people, and as a result made errors in responding.

These errors continue, both in and outside of the UK…

Posted on 10/12/17 | 10:28 AM CET

endorendil

“the EU’s refusal to allow U.K. citizens living in one EU state to resettle in another blocked progress”

That’s not what happened. The UK proposed that EU citizens would just be normal expats, and therefor be fully dealt with under national law. The EU pointed out that the reciprocal offer would be to leave UK expats in the EU under national law as well, which would mean they couldn’t up sticks to another member state. This isn’t mere posturing, the EU actually has no say over non-EU citizens in the EU member states. Those fall under national laws. Unless the Brexit treaty makes UK expats an EU competency, there’s simply nothing the EU can do. Everything, from healthcare to social security, would become a bilateral issue.

It’s therefor essential that the treaty define the EU’s ability to protect UK citizens’ rights. But there is no chance of that, unless the UK reciprocates and allows the EU to protect EU citizens’ rights.

Technically a different court could adjudicate questions on these rights, but that would make little sense: the ECJ is the only international court that definitely decides matters of EU law. It will not sanction a treaty that would change its position.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 11:09 AM CET

jodocus5

Good article. What it omits however is the UK’s finely calculated strategy of being totally non-committal on the Brexit bill (it wants to use that as a bargaining chip in the trade negotiations) and its blackmailing tactics on Ireland (“Give us free access to the Internal Market or we’ll crush Ireland”).

Plus squawks of indignation from the UK when the EU refuses to be suckered in this way.

interesting times.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 11:13 AM CET

vivamagnacarta

A good article, better than much of the standard on this site and far better than many of the comments.
The games played by the EU reflect the weakness of their position. Britain can unilaterally undertake the points below and does not need to bow to EU bluffs.
Britain is also playing a classic good cop bad cop through the media very well. What seems like splits actually reflects decent broad agreement within cabinet along the following lines.
1. Citizen rights. Basically agreed. Everybody in UK at time of exit can stay according to old rules. ECJ does not apply but UK judges can use magna carta common law to refer precedent on unusual situations or points of law to ECJ. That is very far from ECJ jurisdiction over all EU citizens as the EU asked for but were never going to get.
Ireland Border. Britain will have no hard border. The Irish/UK agreement on free movement of people will continue. Goods movement will happen using technology, plate recognition, electronic document submission. The Irish appear to have accepted that works. The mayor of Calais wants it also. It is only EUrocrats who say no. The border at the Irish sea is a non starter. EU can impose the border where it wants but UK will not put in a border. Quite difficult to control for the EU.
Money. Privy Council has demolished the legal basis for EU claim as has the negotiating team. Theresa May has kindly offered to continue to pay during transition (if EU accepts transition) and recognises a moral obligation to continue to fund. If the EU insists on no trade deal then there is no money moral obligation
Trade. UK can accept WTO. It will benefit around £13bn tariff on imports to UK government. UK companies and EU customers would have to pay £8bn tariffs on exports to EU. Even if 100% of export tariffs are reimbursed the Treasury is still much better off. Trade deals can be signed with anyone globally.

When you stand back it is very difficult to accept that the EU is doing anything other than bluffing. If it refuses to allow planes to land and puts a hard border into republic of ireland in violation of Good Friday agreement then it has simply lost the plot, acting illegally and will be seen such.
Expect much sound and light from media and EU but gradually the EU will accept a 2 yr transition period with ongoing UK contributions and pensions as a moral contribution is the best the EU will get and is worth offering a free trade agreement for. Everything else is just posturing and I certainly would not bet against a no deal as the outcome. The UK just does not care either way. The EU really has no leverage.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 11:15 AM CET

endorendil

“On Northern Ireland, agreement about maintaining the Common Travel Area — a special travel zone between the Republic of Ireland and the U.K., the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands — could not mask the inability of the two sides to progress without also talking about a future customs deal.”

This isn’t correct. The customs deal can not avoid the fact that there will be customs at the border. Someone needs to check that the paperwork corresponds to the cargo. Someone needs to check for stowaways, contraband and undervalued or misrepresented merchandise. Regulatory inspections must happen, and for food and agricultural/fish products, this cannot really wait.

The sheer amount of paperwork and inspections can vary, but not the fact that they have to be done. So by all means, try to reduce the problem, but first and foremost the decision needs to be taken on where the border is. If the UK government is unable to overcome DUP opposition, then the border must be through Ulster, which guarantees a huge uptick in smuggling and other criminal activity in the region. That’s bound to lead to violence, if only between rival criminal organisations and between criminal organisations and the police or army. The UK has to state clearly that it simply refuses to consider moving the border to the ports. The EU will certainly protest, but it can not force the issue. The odium will be on the UK government.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 11:18 AM CET

endorendil

@petter It’s not just a political negotiation. “No border in Ulster” is a fine sentiment, a great political slogan and both sides agree on it. Creating it, however, requires a full legal framework that actually works and complies with WTO rules and EU law.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 11:27 AM CET

Stan

@jodocus5

You are right it doesn’t include those things, because they are a figment of your imagination. Perhaps now you’ve planted the seed the next author will pick that up, it isn’t like Politico to miss something out just because it isn’t true I will concede.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 11:28 AM CET

Liam

endorendil
““No border in Ulster” is a fine sentiment, a great political slogan and both sides agree on it. Creating it, however, requires a full legal framework that actually works and complies with WTO rules and EU law.”

From the EU’s viewpoint none of that is the EU’s business. The GFA has to be honoured as well and that is a concern of the EU as is the RoI border.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 11:33 AM CET

endorendil

@viva “If it refuses to allow planes to land and puts a hard border into republic of ireland in violation of Good Friday agreement then it has simply lost the plot, acting illegally and will be seen such.”

So you think the EU will leave the WTO just because otherwise there’s a border in Ireland? You must be high. It’s illegal for the EU to give preferential treatment to the UK without a legal framework (a deal). The same goes for the UK, by the way. It can not leave the border open and stay in the WTO.
As an aside, leaving that border open would mean that most countries wouldn’t be interested in a trade treaty with the UK unless the UK offers much better terms than the EU. Otherwise they can just continue to ship to the EU and route cargo through Belfast. No need to bother with quota, or tariffs, or indeed regulatory checks.

And the EU would not stop planes from landing. Airlines wouldn’t be able to get insurance on their flights, technical maintenance done in the UK would not be valid in the EU (and vice versa), and so on and so forth. It would simply be impossible to get a plane from one side to the other in a legal, safe fashion. It’s a lot less dramatic, but no less consequential.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 11:33 AM CET

endorendil

@Liam
“From the EU’s viewpoint none of that is the EU’s business. The GFA has to be honoured as well and that is a concern of the EU as is the RoI border.”

The GFA does not include anything about the travel in goods, though. For that we need to look at WTO rules and EU/UK laws. It’s hard enough to set up NI as a vast “exception”, so if the UK does not agree soon so both sides can start working out the details, it will not happen.

The GFA was predicated on both sides being in the single market. Just salvaging the spirit of it is going to be hard enough. I’m aware that forcing a border between NI and rUK may loosen Unionist identity, the way a border between NI and RoI would loosen Irish identity in the north. That means that the basis of the GFA – everyone gets to keep their identity and we try to get along – is definitely broken. It’s just that a sea border is significantly easier to implement, harder to attack and less impactful on a daily basis.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 11:44 AM CET

Istvan

It must be true. Politico says so.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 11:45 AM CET

Ronald Grünebaum

endorendil provides some useful factual corrections. Of course, this is totally wasted on our hard Brexiteers here who just won’t deal with facts.

The article is a good summary but the baseline is that the UK misreads the EU and its legalistic approach each and every time. It still assumes a position of genetic superiority which not only looks silly. Their own EU ambassador Ivan Rogers gave them the right guidance and was sacked for that. Some people just cannot be helped.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 11:55 AM CET

vivamagnacarta

endorendil & others

Did not suggest at all that EU would leave WTO. That seems like deliberate misinterpretation but I will accept that describing the EU as acting illegally by banning planes and installing a hard border is overstating the case.
As far as a border is concerned WTO rules do not require a hard border. That is nonsense. Very little of what moves is physically inspected. The whole system already relies on electronic declaration and has done for many years.
There is already Free movement of people and the UK obviously understands that the risk of future banned EU citizens landing in Ireland and coming across to the UK is small. normal EU citizens would be able to fly into Heathrow but would enter as tourists and not be able to get a job because they would not get a permit in their passport.

Those two nuances are fundamental to understanding why the EU has no leverage.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 11:57 AM CET

Hedge fund investor

There was another negotiation team that went to meet with no papers like David Davis did. It was led by that Marxist Varoufakis. Actually many things in the UK begin to remind me of that company free zone called Greece… Living on hand-outs…

We used to invest heavily in the UK. We stopped when ukip started gaining strength.
We consider ukip now inside the conservative party which is reckless with the economy.

We invest in central Europe not in the UK and we will continue not to until trump like brexiters are history.

Good day.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 12:20 PM CET

Johan Dingemanse

The hard brexiteers that think the EU has no levergae or complain that the EU are not willing to negotiate seem to forget that the UK opted to leave the EU, not the other way around. The EU does not have to make a deal. The UK will fall back to trading with the EU under WTO regulations. It is like quitting your job, the moment you tell your boss you quit, your boss does not have to negotiate with you about the conditions of your exit. This is how EU citizens feel about the Brexit. You chose it, man up and live with it.
What the Brexiteers will find out sooner or later is that if the UK wants to keep trading with the EU they will have to abide by EU rules, like they did when they were a member. The only difference is that the UK have no say in the rules anymore.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 12:22 PM CET

Vishnou

A Vaudeville theatre play which may be enjoyable to some but leaves the audience disarrayed and with the painful impression that the director forgot to read the author’s script before staging it and a feeling of sympathy for the actors who have no choice but to play until the final act.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 12:25 PM CET

LastTempoInParis

And now in comments “Exiters” or what I call the “Silly Deniers Party full argue Barnier wasn’t negotiating.
Well he was.
What’s wrong with saying what you want from the start ?
Do you thinks Brit Exiters could turn tables as easily , be serious the EU is top 3 of the world market and the Uk is so ridiculously small on it’s own !

Posted on 10/12/17 | 12:26 PM CET

EU

The british position in its own clueless insanity is pretty clear, they can’t afford the social, political and economical cost of the negotiations and they will substantially wast time up to the end when they will jump the cliff edge still hoping the EU will backpedal.
Dump the old fashioned medieval Kingdom, act your contingency plans and let them sink in their own clueless self important arrogance.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 12:35 PM CET

Steuersklave

@ fatbob

‘The sad part is that the EU mistakes the word ‘negotitation’ for ‘diktat’. And they don’t seem to any adults to speak to. Just petulant drunk children.’

Even with the best will in the world (which there isn’t) the EU simply cannot negotiate with the UK. As far as the EU is concerned it has already done its negotiating, between July 2016 and April 2017 when the EU27 and EU institutions decided on a series of non-negotiable demands to be made of the UK. The EU requires the UK accept its demands or reject them. There is no negotiation.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 12:41 PM CET

Steuersklave

@ endorendil

‘the ECJ is the only international court that definitely decides matters of EU law. It will not sanction a treaty that would change its position.’

That’s your problem there. The ECJ is not an international court, any more than the UK Supreme Court is an international court. The ECJ is the supreme court of the European Union and it has no extraterritorial jurisdiction outside of the EU. If there is to be any bilateral UK-EU agreement on reciprocal citizens’ rights, then it would have to be subject to an international court (e.g. 5 ECJ judges, 5 UK judges, 1 president from a non-EU/EEA/Swiss/UK country). Alternatively pre-Brexit EU citizens’ rights in the post-Brexit UK could be guaranteed by an international EU-UK treaty enforceable in UK courts alone. But the EU will countenance neither of these two options, so ‘no deal’ is the likeliest result.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 12:48 PM CET

Steuersklave

Wrong. The EU is blackmailing Ireland by making it hostage to its insane ‘Phase 1’ demand. The UK has guaranteed the Common Travel Area and offered a comprehensive free trade deal. It’s up to the EU to come up with solutions for its side of the EU-UK border in Ireland.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 12:51 PM CET

oden schutz

You bafflingly hate our club so you’re leaving. But you want to keep using the
club after you’ve resigned? We can discuss that AFTER you’ve paid your bar bill and cleaned up. Is that too difficult to understand? Apparently so.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 12:55 PM CET

vivamagnacarta

oden schutz.

Britain will pay the bar bill and the party cleanup. What it wont do is pay for the glossy new clubhouse that the other members have planned and keep talking about. It will get no benefit so why should it contribute. That is surely not hard to understand?

Posted on 10/12/17 | 1:20 PM CET

Vishnou

@oden schutz: yes, they decided to leave and have to understand it can’t be done by just slamming the door. Despite what brexiteers or brexiters, whatever they name, claim,, it can’t be achieved without minimal compensation: when a tenant leaves his or her flat, before the term, he/she has to pay legal idemnities: only fair. The EU will see to it that this clause is respected.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 1:22 PM CET

vivamagnacarta

Johan Dingemanse
“The only difference is that the UK have no say in the rules anymore.”
The UK has never had any real say in the rules. It has always been a Franco German cartel. It took the pathetic Cameron nogotiation and the Brexit campaign for voters to realise that.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 1:22 PM CET

Vishnou

@vivamagnacarta: It take you happy with Brexit. So, if everything goes according to your secret wishes, why be aggressive?

Posted on 10/12/17 | 1:43 PM CET

glembay18

It is really tragicomedy where real people will suffer at the end and pay the bill for a few ,one way or another,,as usual.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 1:49 PM CET

tony

Hedge fund investor
I will take it that your name really reflects your job. As such you will be an intelligent person.

Bearing in mind all the team meetings, cabinet meetings, civil servant briefings, parliament, committees etc etc do you REALLY believe the British team turned up for their first meeting without notes of AnY kind. REALLY?

This was the official photo and bearing in mind previous security issues they wisely kept things away from prying lenses.

Other photos taken as talks get under way the same day show numerous closed folders and notebooks.

I think you have fallen for European propaganda hook line and sinker if you believe experienced British negotiators just wandered into a meeting with no preparation

Posted on 10/12/17 | 3:23 PM CET

Anthony Chambers

Ground given by UK plenty vs. Ground given by EU none. One party is negotiating and the other is grand standing.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 4:49 PM CET

Demetrius

Sorry but it’s the media and correspondents like yourself that are the tragicomedy. You need a degree in fake and biased reporting in order to get any decent coverage of absolutely anything these days.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 4:57 PM CET

Bob

To see Brexit in perspecive, the place to begin is the post-2008 eurozone crisis, because that is what led to the Brexit referendum.

In the wake of the post-2008 eurozone crisis, the EU began discussing the idea of closer financial integration of EU member states in order to fix structural problems with the euro. At that time, the UK knew that it would not want to be a part of the closer financial integration, because the financial institutions of the City of London did not see themselves being regulated along the lines being suggested.

At the same time, there was persistent euroscepticism within the Conservative party, and, to an extent, in the Labour party. And there was also constant agitation from Nigel Farage’s UKIP for Britain to leave the EU. In that context was born the Conservative party’s idea of renegotiating the terms of the UK’s EU membership, to be followed by a national referendum on whether, under the renegotiated terms, the UK should or should not stay within the EU.

The continental idea of closer financial integration of EU countries was dropped or back-burnered in Brussels, but the UK idea of a referendum based on renegotiated EU membership terms became the keystone of the 2015 Conservative party manifesto. The Conservatives had a surprise win in that election, and the renegotiation and referendum process began.

People forget that, in late 2015 and early 2016, when David Cameron went to the other EU member states to renegotiate the UK’s terms of membership, his proposals received pretty much the same hostile reception that Brexit is receiving in Brussels today. It was clear at that time that Cameron needed to get significant concessions on the free movement of people within the EU, among other things, and he didn’t get anything of substance on anything that he needed. (In passing, Cameron was encouraged by his EU colleagues to accept prior to negotiations that certain things were unattainable and that he should negotiate from a more modest set of initial demands. That turned out to be a negotiating mistake, and it is notable that the same mistake has not been repeated by the UK in the Brexit negotiations.)

Regardless of whether Cameron was believed or not believed by the leaders of the other 27 EU member states, it seemed at the time that no one involved in the negotiations contemplated the possibility that a Brexit referendum could produce a Leave result. Perhaps that affected the negotiations, but it is also possible that it had no effect on the negotiation, because, given the political dynamics of the EU, it was simply impossible for the EU to deliver what Cameron needed to bring home in order for the Brexit referendum to produce a Remain result.

In essence, Theresa May and David Davis are in exactly the same position that David Cameron was in. Perhaps the prevailing opinion in Brussels is that the UK will change its collective mind about Brexit and rescind its notification. (Or perhaps that is being suggested to tempt the UK into a process that would result in the UK’s adopting the euro and otherwise losing its special status within the EU.) It is also possible, however, that, every relevant person in Brussels recognizes that there the odds of a hard Brexit which hurts both the UK and the EU more than any other possible outcome are 1:1 but that the EU27 as a political entity cannot accommodate the UK because the political dynamics of the EU make it impossible either (a) to move quickly on anything or (b) to do anything that could be taken as acceptance of the UK’s departure.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 5:13 PM CET

oden schutz

We know that the English are desperate for the approval of their American masters.
How would it look if the millions of Irish-American voters twigged that yet again,
due to the insanity of brexit, Ireland is the victim of English brutality? Any UK leader, whining for favors in the Oval office, might have a mauvais quart d’heure or three…

Posted on 10/12/17 | 5:14 PM CET

Petter B.

sgu66:

Thank you for your analysis, I think you are spot on. I’m not a Britt, but from what the papers reports Labour probably wouldn’t fare any better if they sat in office. The in/out split run right down the middle of both parties.

> the Tories … need a political gesture from the EU to highlight as a “win”

Pretty much, yes. The problem (which I tries to pint out) is that the EUs negotiation stance wont allow them to give the UK side any “win”, as it would undermine Brussels authority within the block. Hence, there’s no real negotiations going on,

Posted on 10/12/17 | 6:38 PM CET

Peter2

Do you believe Davis o Davis is the best Person as a head negotiator?
Especially with his hard core leavers background, who want a clean break.
So do he prefer a no deal outcome or why is he so unprofessional and unprepared?
I have understood that his merits are from football field, I suppose that’ why there are so much balls and courtyards in these negotiations.

Posted on 10/12/17 | 7:15 PM CET

Europeann

The Brits continue to want a package deal: No Euro 100 billion reparation, no recognition of full EU citizens´rights, no recognition og the EC or the ECJ. But they want TRADE,TRADE, TRADE with the EU or with its help, for they can´t trade with any onelse. They keep trying Australia and New Zealand without sucess. The Brits should realize they are isolated as a non-EU member, and that the EU is not going to accept their eternal cherry-picking.
Let the Brits still living in the EU leave the European Union. Let them work for their country. For they have no longer anything to do with it. The British eurocrats should be the first to leave, seconded by the British real estate sharks in EU´ s Southern shores, and last by the British pensioners. Let all of these Brits work for their beloved England and use their NHS. The British NHS will be only too happy to welcome its expats!

Posted on 10/12/17 | 9:49 PM CET

tony

Peter2
I am afraid you have got entirely the wrong David Davis!

Mr Davis is an elected politician and cabinet minister.he got a business degree from the London business school and Harvard and a degree from Cambridge in computer studies.

he was very senior in a major multinational and is well used to conducting trade deals.

In all those respects he is much more qualified than European bureaucrat Mr Barnier

Posted on 10/12/17 | 10:08 PM CET

crispin hythe

De Gaulle was right of course, back in the 1960s. The English are
not mature enough to take part in ‘L’Europe des Patries’, not
least because England, with no national identity, is a fake nation.
Once we [including N Ireland and Scotland] are free of the English, a big problem will be dealing with a backward 3rd world territory in our very midst. Strict border controls will be needed at Calais, Hadrian’s Wall, Rosslare etc, to prevent illegal English economic migrants. Planning should start at once.

Posted on 10/13/17 | 6:12 AM CET

wow

@crispin

It’s funny how the genocide caused by the nations in europe has been turned into a feeling of superiority.

Only you guys could do that, in your arrogance.

The truth is, the Visegrad 4, UK and Scandanavians do not feel ANY collective guilt whatsoever for YOUR crimes against humanity. That is why our/these countries are aloof to your ‘superior’ ideas and aloof to the Euro and EU.

Only those with guilt feel the need to completely exterminate their own nations. We in UK see too much love of nation as extreme and we see too much hate of own nation as extreme also.

We are just moderates in the UK and the guilt trip doesn’t work on countries who were not involved in your backwards genocidal nonsense, which you have (bizarrely) now turned into a superiority complex to ease your guilt.

You are extremists trying to purge your guilt on others who were honourable and on the right side of history.

Posted on 10/13/17 | 8:42 AM CET

CrIspy's silly posts

@crispy Hythe

😀 You’re getting more @Eurpeann by the day.

DeGaulle was a tart who hid in Britain whilst his country was surrendered and you revere him? In France’s moment of need he… legged it. You have seen Hadrian’s wall haven’t you? It might need some work to stop us hopping over it to visit the Scots.

Scotland’s National Party will be a welcome addition to all the other Nationalist parties in the EU atm.

Posted on 10/13/17 | 11:39 AM CET

Roland

Its weird the UK seems to think the EU wants to bend them over a barrel and f them up the a** when really all the EU wants is to limit the damage a Brexit will cause as much as possible There is a huge lack of trust. Europhobia run amock ? Irrational fear of white men with foreign accents ? Sneaky frog Barnier must be up to something..

Posted on 10/13/17 | 11:50 AM CET

Justathought

Wow
You are the biggest extremist on these pages. Every line of yours oozes arrogance and contempt of other Europeans.
With a 300-years history of looting other countries which left millions in misery or dead around the world you call yourself moderate. How dare you?
You say you are a leftie – you are a national socialist, nothing else!
I guess you know what happened to national socialists, they were all hanged!

Look it up

Cheerio now

Posted on 10/13/17 | 12:50 PM CET

gw

Nothing but the drab cocktail of misplaced arrogance, dithering vagueness, and mind-bending incompetence displayed by the UK government.

Posted on 10/13/17 | 2:47 PM CET

Bright Spark

Bob – Posted on 10/12/17 | 5:13 PM CEST
Yours is a brilliant piece but there are a few tweaks.
The referendum was also born out of Blair accepting free movement of people on the EU expansion – when most other EU members didn’t. They had a phased acceptance with increasing quotas. The EU could have retrospectively given that, or a phase to the UK. Immigration is almost always beneficial but it does bring some problems. It would have been more imaginative to have addressed the few problems high levels of immigration bring. Funding for municipal housing, education, health etc would have sent a huge message to stressed areas. Pretty hard to dislike the reason you live in a new energy efficient house while your child goies to a refurbished school and your family has better health care facilities. That would have been short term as children grow up. But they didn’t. And here we are. That the negotiations include how the 3m immigrants to the UK will be treated as opposed to the 1m expats shows the size of the problem the EU ignored.